All Australian

So Bailey wins Claremont’s league best and fairest award as a 19 year old, interviews extremely well and studies business at UWA, yet has to wait for his name to be called out in the rookie draft while there unproven 18 year olds getting picked in the national draft? To me it seems mature age recruits, even if you’d call Bailey a mature age recruit, get a pretty tough wrap compared to 18 year olds when it comes to the draft. Not that I’m complaining because we got a great kid at an absolute bargain pick, but Bailey should’ve gone top 50 at least.

Brownlow Medallist

So Bailey wins Claremont’s league best and fairest award as a 19 year old, interviews extremely well and studies business at UWA, yet has to wait for his name to be called out in the rookie draft while there unproven 18 year olds getting picked in the national draft? To me it seems mature age recruits, even if you’d call Bailey a mature age recruit, get a pretty tough wrap compared to 18 year olds when it comes to the draft. Not that I’m complaining because we got a great kid at an absolute bargain pick, but Bailey should’ve gone top 50 at least.

Norm Smith Medallist

So Bailey wins Claremont’s league best and fairest award as a 19 year old, interviews extremely well and studies business at UWA, yet has to wait for his name to be called out in the rookie draft while there unproven 18 year olds getting picked in the national draft? To me it seems mature age recruits, even if you’d call Bailey a mature age recruit, get a pretty tough wrap compared to 18 year olds when it comes to the draft. Not that I’m complaining because we got a great kid at an absolute bargain pick, but Bailey should’ve gone top 50 at least.

I think it was Taylor who first posted it here but I agree and think there's a bit of groupthink/bias among recruiters, they're all possibly thinking if someone misses out on their draft year there must be something wrong with them that the other recruiters know that we don't, the further they slip the more confirming this bias gets

Club Legend

So Bailey wins Claremont’s league best and fairest award as a 19 year old, interviews extremely well and studies business at UWA, yet has to wait for his name to be called out in the rookie draft while there unproven 18 year olds getting picked in the national draft? To me it seems mature age recruits, even if you’d call Bailey a mature age recruit, get a pretty tough wrap compared to 18 year olds when it comes to the draft. Not that I’m complaining because we got a great kid at an absolute bargain pick, but Bailey should’ve gone top 50 at least.

Silly thing is that he won't be our only quality rookie player, plus how did we end up with Darcy, Ryan at their picks?
Freo recruiting deserves an A, there is not one dud amongst them, nailed consecutive drafts, trading and rebuilt a
list in two seasons.
This year should be the icing on the cake.

Fremantle Obsessive

I think it was Taylor who first posted it here but I agree and think there's a bit of groupthink/bias among recruiters, they're all possibly thinking if someone misses out on their draft year there must be something wrong with them that the other recruiters know that we don't, the further they slip the more confirming this bias gets

Absolutely. In Banfield's case his card had been stamped - can't kick. Remains to be seen if this is the case in open field play. Its certainly a weakness that can be covered for playing the defensive forward role. He's really not a lot different to DeBoer in the way he presents really. Looks to be a bit more creative so far but time will tell.

Brownlow Medallist

Absolutely. In Banfield's case his card had been stamped - can't kick. Remains to be seen if this is the case in open field play. Its certainly a weakness that can be covered for playing the defensive forward role. He's really not a lot different to DeBoer in the way he presents really. Looks to be a bit more creative so far but time will tell.

Brownlow Medallist

Absolutely. In Banfield's case his card had been stamped - can't kick. Remains to be seen if this is the case in open field play. Its certainly a weakness that can be covered for playing the defensive forward role. He's really not a lot different to DeBoer in the way he presents really. Looks to be a bit more creative so far but time will tell.

Funnily enough I was watching some games earlier on Youtube in the 2012-13 era and when I saw De Boer, I thought Banfield. Banfield however is more agile and seems to move faster (even though De Boer's acceleration was top notch) and he is obviously a lot longer kick. But they did have some similarities in the way they moved.

Club Legend

Funnily enough I was watching some games earlier on Youtube in the 2012-13 era and when I saw De Boer, I thought Banfield. Banfield however is more agile and seems to move faster (even though De Boer's acceleration was top notch) and he is obviously a lot longer kick. But they did have some similarities in the way they moved.

Freo Tragic Since the Beginning

Absolutely. In Banfield's case his card had been stamped - can't kick. Remains to be seen if this is the case in open field play. Its certainly a weakness that can be covered for playing the defensive forward role. He's really not a lot different to DeBoer in the way he presents really. Looks to be a bit more creative so far but time will tell.

He was the bloke that took the aggressive kick to Ballas through the middle in Q2 on Sunday that lead to the end to end transition goal to Sonny. One kick doesn’t make him a genius or highly skilled but perhaps not as bad as implied previously.

Brownlow Medallist

Yep!Identified the kick to launch the counterattack and executed it perfectly.
My take: on limited evidence is that the decision making and vision may be ahead of the skills at this stage.
Really not by that much though.
Given all we're hearing about the fella I'd stake him to make up the gap.

All Australian

Absolutely. In Banfield's case his card had been stamped - can't kick. Remains to be seen if this is the case in open field play. Its certainly a weakness that can be covered for playing the defensive forward role. He's really not a lot different to DeBoer in the way he presents really. Looks to be a bit more creative so far but time will tell.

We really need to stop the comparison's to De Beor. He kicked a goal on the run from outside 50 in his second game. I can't remember De Beor doing that for a career. They are both supposedly half forward flankers - apart from that, there really is no comparison.

Fremantle Obsessive

We really need to stop the comparison's to De Beor. He kicked a goal on the run from outside 50 in his second game. I can't remember De Beor doing that for a career. They are both supposedly half forward flankers - apart from that, there really is no comparison.

I was referring to how they were both overlooked till the rookie draft due to perceived kicking weakness. Also they both played WAFL for Claremont and both studied at UWA. They both seem like very hard workers with strong work ethic and team first attitude and very coachable.
Enough there for me to make a comparison. You'll notice I said there are similarities in the way they present (as prospects) not necessarily how they play. It probably wasn't that clear from my original post what I meant.

Norm Smith Medallist

I think it was Taylor who first posted it here but I agree and think there's a bit of groupthink/bias among recruiters, they're all possibly thinking if someone misses out on their draft year there must be something wrong with them that the other recruiters know that we don't, the further they slip the more confirming this bias gets

Our recruiters actually seem to have a draft strategy targeting players that miss their first draft year.
I think all of Banfield, Meek, Nyhuis, Hughes, Wood, Ballard, Taberner, Duffy, and Sutcliffe were drafted the year after they reached recruitment age.

EDIT: That's on top of guys like Switkowski, Jones, Ryan, Collins, Uebergang, and Hannath who were 2-4 years older than draft age.

Debutant

Our recruiters actually seem to have a draft strategy targeting players that miss their first draft year.
I think all of Banfield, Meek, Nyhuis, Hughes, Wood, Ballard, Taberner, Duffy, and Sutcliffe were drafted the year after they reached recruitment age.

EDIT: That's on top of guys like Switkowski, Jones, Ryan, Collins, Uebergang, and Hannath who were 2-4 years older than draft age.

Do you think this is to generate strong loyalty from these players? I know if I was overlooked then picked up late the next year, I'd feel very loyal to whoever gave me a chance. About Banfield, if you told me there'd be two debuts in round 1 I would have assumed Brayshaw and Cerra. Talk about a bolter!

Norm Smith Medallist

Do you think this is to generate strong loyalty from these players? I know if I was overlooked then picked up late the next year, I'd feel very loyal to whoever gave me a chance. About Banfield, if you told me there'd be two debuts in round 1 I would have assumed Brayshaw and Cerra. Talk about a bolter!

I'd say it is more a reflection of what type of character we are looking for. The guys who have seemingly missed their chance but continue to bust their ass to make it are just the sort you want on your team.

I suspect that type are also more likely to stay anyway, so indirectly I think you are correct.

Premiership Player

Drafting 19 year olds isn’t uncommon throughout the league. Richmond, Freo and West Coast drafted 7 of them between them. It’d average around one a club around the league last year I reckon. The ratio of 19 year olds vs all other mature aged draftees would be somewhere between 1:1 and 1:2. We’d certainly be above average but it’s not just us drafting them. To state the obvious the chances of getting drafted diminish the older you get - you’re more likely to get drafted at 19 than at 22/23.